The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 8 November 2007 as a Chamber composed of: Mr B.M. ZUPANČIČ, President, Mr C. BÎRSAN, Mr R. TÜRMEN, Mrs E. FURA-SANDSTRÖM, Mr E. MYJER, Mr DAVID THÓR BJÖRGVINSSON, Mrs I. ZIEMELE, judges, and Mr S. QUESADA, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 23 May 2002, Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Erdal Fırat Çaralan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1981 and lives in Istanbul. He was represented before the Court by Mr K.T. Sürek, a lawyer practising in Istanbul. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) did not designate an Agent for the purposes of the proceedings before the Court. 2 ÇARALAN v. TURKEY DECISION A. The...
CONSEIL DE L’EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L’HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS THIRD SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 28889/02 by Erdal Fırat ÇARALAN against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 8 November 2007 as a Chamber composed of: Mr B.M. ZUPANČIČ, President, Mr C. BÎRSAN, Mr R. TÜRMEN, Mrs E. FURA-SANDSTRÖM, Mr E. MYJER, Mr DAVID THÓR BJÖRGVINSSON, Mrs I. ZIEMELE, judges, and Mr S. QUESADA, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 23 May 2002, Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Erdal Fırat Çaralan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1981 and lives in Istanbul. He was represented before the Court by Mr K.T. Sürek, a lawyer practising in Istanbul. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) did not designate an Agent for the purposes of the proceedings before the Court.
2 ÇARALAN v. TURKEY DECISION A. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. The applicant was a member of a political party, the Labour Party (Emeğin Partisi), at the time of the events giving rise to the present application. On 17 October 2000 the applicant was taken into police custody after having distributed leaflets of the Labour Party concerning collective labour agreements. On the same day, he was released without being brought before a judge. On an unspecified date the Eyüp public prosecutor imposed a fine of 22.815.0001 Turkish Liras (TRL) on the applicant for illegally distributing leaflets. The applicant did not pay the due amount. Subsequently, on 26 February 2001 the Eyüp public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the Eyüp Magistrate’s Court charging the applicant of having illegally distributing leaflets under Article 534 § 1 of the Criminal Code. On 28 February 2001 the Eyüp Magistrate’s Court found the applicant guilty as charged and, by issuing a penal order (ceza kararnamesi), sentenced him to a fine of TRL 34,220,0002. When issuing the penal order, the court did not hold a public hearing; it decided solely on the content of the case file. On 19 April 2001 the applicant filed an objection against the decision of 28 February 2001. In his petition, he maintained that the Labour Party was not required to obtain authorisation or to submit a copy of the leaflet in question to the authorities for information purposes prior to the distribution of leaflets as, according to Article 44 of Law no. 2908, the political parties were not required to do so. He further contended that he was deprived of the opportunity to submit his defence submissions to the Eyüp Magistrate’s Court in violation of Article 6 of the Convention. The applicant finally submitted that his criminal conviction infrin...